Posted
by
Zonk
on Thursday March 27, 2008 @07:45AM
from the you-have-chosen-poorly dept.

recoiledsnake writes "The new Safari 3.1 for Windows has been hit with two 'highly critical'(as rated by Secunia) vulnerabilities that can result in execution of arbitrary code. The first is due to an improper handling of the buffer for long filenames of files being downloaded, and the second can result in successful spoofing of websites and phishing. This comes close on the heels of criticism of Apple for offering Safari as a update for approximately 500 million users of iTunes on Windows by default, and reports of crashes. There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites." Further, Wormfan writes "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."Update: 03/27 17:23 GMT by Z: Dave Schroeder writes with the note that the license has been updated to correct this mistake.

"The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."

You laugh, but a coworker of mine took one of those Apple stickers and stuck it over the logo on the back of his company-provided Dell. There was always a moment of confusion when you saw his Dell, because it looked like a PC, but the Apple logo appeared to be built-in.

He eventually moved on, but the person who inherited the laptop still has that sticker on there!:P

When the very first Blue & White PowerMacs came out, the print studio at the ad agency I worked for was totally pumped for their machines -- they had been sucking it up using beige G3s and even older PPC Macs.

Since my job was prepping the machines for install in the studio, I decided to pimp the studio people by putting an "Intel Inside" logo over the Apple logo; of course the machine was for the Mac zealot in the group who was super pissed that the logo was there and that he couldn't figure out how to remove it.

I caught hell for doing it, primarily because it took major surgery and a ton of time to put the stupid thing in there and I didn't get some other tasks accomplished.

I used to work for Sun back in the early 90's, when Linux was first getting off the ground. We had finally gotten X to run under Linux, and so I figured I'd see what it would do on a 386SX/25 laptop with 16MB of RAM. It was pretty slow, but as long as I wasn't doing anything it was fine. When the screensaver kicked in, I saw the traditional Sun logo, and that gave me an idea for a prank.

I went down to engineering and got one of the old metal Sun logos, the ones that used to be on the front of Sun-2 boxes, and put it over the logo of the laptop, fired it up in my office, and waited for the first victim to wander by. A while later, one of the senior software developers walked into my office to ask me something, and spied the laptop with the Sun logo and the screensaver running with the Sun logo on it. "How'd you get a Sparc laptop? I didn't think they were in production yet!" I have lots of friends... [chuckle]...

It didn't take long for the prank to be found out, but it sure was fun for a while...:)

Reminds me of the time that I got Wine running under A/UX (Apple's version of UNIX, SVR4 flavor) - I was working for Apple at the time, and it was fun to see people's faces when they'd come by and see the Windows logo on the screen on what was obviously a Mac, but that's a story for another time. Sure was a fair bit of work, but it worth the prank value...:)

"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"

Not a naturist or nudist.

Sorry, the funny part is I translated it from Swedish to English without really reflecting over it, and had to check the dictionary (in Swedish) and realized I was wrong even there.
Oh well, hope you still got the point:)

People are having software that they have no license to use being automatically installed on their systems. I would think a term like that is not valid (non-obvious terms may not be valid in the US), but if it does hold, they will have millions of people in the US infringing on their IP. If they decide they are desperate and start suing (not likely any time soon) there are a lot of potential targets.

This is like the RIAA giving away MP3s on their website, saying "you agree to listen to this on only RIAA approved devices". When you suddenly have millions of people acting innocently illegally using your product it is not good for them.

The EULA is not a red herring.... If they decide they are desperate and start suing (not likely any time soon) there are a lot of potential targets.

Oh, come on. That's not just farfetched, it's ridiculous. First of all, the scenario you describe is impossible just because of the issue that they pushed this update out themselves. Even if they did become this "desperate" (because of people illegitimately using their free web browser? Well, whatever), no judge in the world would listen to a suit like that. Bu

There is no "just an oversight" when it comes to legal documents, as a good lawyer once drummed into my skull. The stupid, obvious thing you don't correct before you sign a legal document is the stupid, obvious thing you're legally liable for afterward. IANAL, but I'd bet that the fact that Apple installed it on one's system might be a defense for the violation, but in and of itself wouldn't really seem to nullify the EULA. Who is to say which the oversight is... one of not changing the EULA to include PCs,

The security issues isn't the real problem here, all software has them from time to time.

Oh blow me. Can you imagine the shitstorm of a comment thread that would result from this exact same thing being the result of MS's doing? The massive gaping security hole *is* a big deal, it is not made less so just because Apple did it and not MS.

And what the hell are you talking about with MS giving guidelines? You mean like, MS should give you guidelines on what you should and should not do with your PC? Dude, seriously, where the hell did you come up with your ideas?

Though you meant it as a joke, for users on Vista, that could actually be a good thing. IE on Vista runs in a sandbox, so any code owning IE can only mess with the cache folder or something, and can do nothing to your system as well nor any thing to your user files like documents. Whereas, almost every other browser out there runs with the user permissions(not root or admin) by default(on all OSes, AFAIK), so that a compromise can result in viruses/keyloggers etc. that can run on startup, delete your user files/documents and/or email them to Nigeria whereas that's not simply possible with IE on Vista.

If Safari becomes the default browser on these systems, you end up with critical vulnerabilities in a browser installed on non-tech-savvy individuals' computers.

So first we have to have a user who is unaware of what Safari is or careless enough to not uncheck the box in Apple Software Update. It seems highly unlikely to me that many of the users who download Safari without thinking about it are going to go looking for it in the Programs menu and launch it. And it's not vulnerable if it's not running.

It was silly and wrong for Apple to leave the box checked by default, but this is not a big problem, and it's not going to become one.

Look at it another way. You have a Mac, and you run Office. Somewhere during the routine update process, some new, not-ready-for-primetime version of IE gets installed and is set as your default browser.

The issue is in part that Safari is not related to iTunes or Quicktime. There's no reason to believe that by installing music software, the manufacturer will also push a browser to you.

All this will do is piss people off and make them turn off automatic update options, which will eventually result in some flaw in iTunes or Quicktime being less widely patched. It was not a capital crime, but it was dumb and irresponsible of Apple.

And the EULA thing is just funny. What with the ample fleet of lawyers they have in Cupertino, I'm surprised ANYTHING gets out without a full legal vetting. Software gets out with bugs, but EULAs don't typically get out without great scrutiny.

Also, if you do choose to buy an ipod, you don't have to use itunes.You don't even have to use apple-firmware in your ipod. There's an upgrade-firmware [rockbox.org] that makes itunes totally obsolete.It's not available for all ipod-models yet though...

All in all, though, an installer that offers the option of installing irrelevant software (like installers that offer "google toolbar" or "Safari" or "superduper spywareinstaller") should have that option unselected as default.

To call rockbox an upgrade firmware is streching the truth a bit. Limited support for video, limited support for album art, and cluttered UI are real issues for individuals that want their players to "just work".

Mind you, I last installed it about 4 months ago. I'll try again if people say it's much better now.

Considering Apple's notorious heavy-handedness in their software updates and the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer when installed, I wouldn't install a piece of Apple software on my computer if you put a gun to my head (I'd as soon install Realmedia player). I used to put Quicktime on my system, but I got so tired of putting up with that sneaky turd (would NOT let you completely uninstall it, insisted on always running in the background no matter what you did to stop it, would try to sneak its way back into your registry even if you deleted its entries, aggressively took over neutral file types, would constantly try to trick you into installing iTunes too, etc.) that I finally refused to even install that much (I use "Quicktime alternative").

Anyone who installs Apple software had better be prepared to join the cult, otherwise stay the hell clear of it.

Considering Apple's notorious heavy-handedness in their software updates and the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer when installed, I wouldn't install a piece of Apple software on my computer if you put a gun to my head (I'd as soon install Realmedia player). I used to put Quicktime on my system, but I got so tired of putting up with that sneaky turd (would NOT let you completely uninstall it, insisted on always running in the background no matter what you did to stop it, would try to sneak its way back into your registry even if you deleted its entries, aggressively took over neutral file types, would constantly try to trick you into installing iTunes too, etc.) that I finally refused to even install that much (I use "Quicktime alternative").

Anyone who installs Apple software had better be prepared to join the cult, otherwise stay the hell clear of it.

I agree with that, but if you need Qucktime support in, say, an organziation there is a way around that without using Quicktime Alternative.

Download the installer. Run cabextract on it. You'll get the following files:

AppleSoftwareUpdate.msiQuickTime.msiQuickTimeInstallerAdmin.exe

Only install Qucktime.msi. Delete the others. Just do msiexec/qn/i Qucktime.msi.

Make sure to delete the shortcuts so users can't bring it up. Doing it this way will let the browser plugins work, and also enable software that uses quicktime to work (lots of educational software uses it) without being hostile to your system. It will only take the quicktime file extensions this way.

Thats a great suggestion.. a minor nitpick..
"msiexec/qn/i Qucktime.msi " will run the msi with no UI at all.. replacing "/qn" with "/qb!" will do the same install with a limited UI. Atleast that way there is some indication that an install is in progress.

Sometimes it's just really not a good idea to push a piece of software out to hundreds of millions of people on its first release just because they use/update your other products. This is the real way that it could come back and bite them, and it certainly seems to have.

EULA's have gotten to the point that they conflict with themselves. One can then assume that Safari is intended for the Windows install on Mac machines, *or* on machines to which someone has applied an Apple brand sticker.

I am waiting for the EULA that requires all users to declare the programmer their god and send off their first born child to him in sacrifice.

"The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."

I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.

Was there a way to read the license agreement before installing the update? If there was then surely Apple are in the 'clear', as you can run Windows on an Apple and so it's not their fault that you installed something that you shouldn't technically have done.

How are they to know the difference between Windows on a Mac and Windows on any other PC to determine whether to disable the 'bonus feature' or not?

Potentially, but it'll be hellish invasive and a number of intrusion tools might pick it up. Most software just checks Windows version. Linux makes access to architecture and a couple of other bits easy. They could find that it's a dual-core Pentium, and that someone has set the vendor to "Apple", but does that mean it's an Apple?The only other way is that the updater maintains a list of what hardware configs Apple has, and then they'll need to keep updating that list and potentially get in to the situation

Good points, though I think it can be explained in a much easier manner.

As someone who regularly uses the functions "copy" and "paste", I can tell you that there are many times where I c/p a blob of text and forgot to change something crucial in it. This happens to many people. Apparently, the folks at Apple are not immune to human flaws.

It's probably just an oversight. A HUGE oversight. But there's really no need to make a circus out of it. Then again, this is Slashdot, right?

How can you violate an agreement that you never agreed to? Does Microsoft have a copy of a contract with my signature on it saying I'll accept its terms of use for XP? If I had Safari would Apple have a signed contract?

When I go to best buy I don't "license" an OS or piece of software; I pick a box up off the shelf, pay money for it and am delivered a purchase reciept. I then own the goods that I just BOUGHT. I am under no statutory obligation to read anything or sign anything. I tear open the box and do what I want with it, short of violating copyright law.

Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.

You are mistaking "signature" and "agreement." Signatures are not a prerequisite to a valid contract, they are merely very good evidence of agreement. You can get out of some contracts you signed and you can be held to some contracts you didn't. The lack of a signature is not the reason EULAs are of questionable enforceability.

Technically, those contracts aren't even implied, they are explicit. The terms beyond the price and quantity of the gum will be supplied by applicable law. In states within the U.S. that have adopted it, the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, will apply. Under UCC 2-201, the contract doesn't have to be in writing because it is for less than a certain amount (depending on the version of the UCC that the state has adopted; generally $500). Under 2-509, because you bought the gum from a gum merchant, the

It's not even that. Microsoft have their way in that regard now. What you own is the media with a binary copy of the application/operating system. What you license by agreement to the EULA is the rights to then install and use that software as a running process (or processes) on compatible hardware.

It's not even that. Microsoft have their way in that regard now. What you own is the media with a binary copy of the application/operating system. What you license by agreement to the EULA is the rights to then install and use that software as a running process (or processes) on compatible hardware.

Sorry, but 17 USC 117 says that owning the binary copy already grants me the right to install and use the software.

"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."

They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.

but you can ignore it if it gives you no opportunity to read the licence *before* accepting, and you can ignore it if it gives you no opportunity to refuse

Well, I bet that the iTunes EULA includes somewhere in it the rights to expand the scope, yada, yada.

I imagine that there is an anti-trust suit waiting to happen, since Apple has a near-monopoly on music downloads, which requires the iTunes player, which pushes Safari... If it's good enough for MS, it's good for Apple.

Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.

I guess you better close your eyes and hum real loud then. I'm not saying it's universal, but to take a few examples from the wikipedia page in Brower v. Gateway "the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by his failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document." And regarding click-wraps: "Click-wrap licenses have met with more support in the courts, though notable counterexamples exist. In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an 'I Agree' button in order to install the software."

The whole section on enforcability starts with "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C." If you read between the lines, it says "No court has rejected EULAs outright". If you're outside the US, it seems to be much the same. Yes, Germany declared the bundling with Windows to be unenforcable, but the EULA as such still remains. In short, you're talking about the way you want it to be not legal reality except possibly in Kansas where there was a ruling agreeing with you.

If you do not agree to the license, you do not have a right to use said software. If, as you claim, a signature was required for the license to be valid, you would not have the right to use any software (except, perhaps, BSD-style and artistic licensed work) without giving your signature to Microsoft, Apple, etc.

If you do not agree to the license, you do not have a right to use said software.

Especially in the case of boxed, purchased software, I gained the right when I gave the store clerk money in exchange for that software. In fact, since up until the point that I click "I Agree" to some ignorable EULA I haven't even given the illusion of agreeing to anything, it's my right to hack out any objectionable code (such as that EULA dialog). That's because I own that copy of the software.

My iPod came with those as well. Too bad there was not enough space left on my laptop after the Mozilla folk were nice enough to give me a sheet of Mozilla stickers for purchasing a few t-shirts and a laptop tote...

Sheesh, I'm on the verge of finally switching from Microsoft to Apple (just been waiting on the new rev of the Mac Mini to appear) and they go and pull the funny business of trying to slip Safari on to Windows desktops that use Itunes. On top of that there is now this report of the security flaws found in Safari. So now Apple is carelessly pushing a security risk browser onto unsuspecting client PC's. This is really underhanded and has be getting cold feet. Ubuntu perhaps....then?

Apple, these sort of tactics really are not necessary. Don't take the low road please...you can win it by going on the high way.

Apple has gotten where it is almost exclusively by taking the low road, with borderling false advertising and Microsoft-style tactics. They originally make an excellent product (MacOSX, Ipods, etc), get a name from it, then push it further using the low road. Its always been that way. If you're going to move away from Microsoft because of shady marketing as one of your primary reasons, stay clear from Apple. Jobs makes Balmer look like a saint in that department.

I think you should seriously consider Ubuntu: for all those things that people usually use a Mac Mini for (music, video, photos, web browsing, text processing, Skype, etc.), it's actually probably a better choice. Ubuntu supports more audio, video, and file formats, it's easier to keep updated, and all the applications are preinstalled. Oh, and Ubuntu will talk just fine to your iPod, and unlike iTunes, will let you copy both to and from the iPod.

(I have a Mac Mini, an iMac, and several iPods, but I now mostly use my Ubuntu systems for everything)

1) Apple fanbois who can't afford an Apple, or don't know about Boot Camp, or don't want to keep jumping between two different OSes, or just want a browser that looks like their iTunes.

2) Web devs who want their sites to look reasonable for any Mac visitors.

There's probably also a small number of people who might see it and be tempted to check out a full Apple computer because of it, but given that it'll stick out like a sore thumb in Windows then I doubt it.

About number 2: GP was asking about people who want to use Safari. As one sample out of your second group, let me tell you we don't want or like to use Safari nor MSIE 5.5. They're the really ugly stuff that need to be worked with some times, but that's everything but pleasurable.

Anyone who has ever tried to REALLY uninstall one of their apps (or get Quicktime to stop running in the background or sneaking back into your registry) should not be surprised. Apple software is sneaky, aggressive, and not to be trusted.

And the heavy-handed tactics they use to push said software is truly amazing. If MS did half of the underhanded stuff Apple does, they would be dragged back into court in a heartbeat. Why Apple continues to get a free pass on such crap is beyond me.

I will NOT install Quicktime, iTunes, Safari or any other Apple software on my computer. And I always advise others not too as well. It's just not worth the hassle (if Apple really wanted your business, and not just to sleaze their way onto your computer, they would sell iTunes songs through their website and not require a software download).

B...b....but Apple is not a monopoly! That means they can and SHOULD do this!!!/sarcasm.

Seriously though, Apple is allowed legaly for said reason, but I never understood why people accept it... I mean, last I checked, when Microsoft -started- doing that crap, they weren't a monopoly either...and look where it got us.

That being said...watching a media player (iTune)conflict with a RAID (I swear Ive seen that happen) is quite amusing... Just exactly WHAT is that stupid thing doing anyway?

I call BS. I just uninstalled iTunes and there's no background process or anything like that running, and no executable remaining. Maybe the program should have offered to remove the program preferences in your account, but there's no binary there.

That "spyware" service you refer to is just a notifier to open iTunes when an iPod is connected. That's all it does. It's hardly malicious, and it doesn't report to Apple what you do with your computer.

Maybe not as easy, but its extremely easy to find the running process and get rid of it on Windows too. The problem is that Apple's software for Windows works almost like a spyware. It has so many entry points, and its so carefully integrated to everything, that getting rid of all its components is quite tough. Its multiple components, not just one, plus it not always running, so....The tricks would be different, but similar things can be done on OSX too. You just need different tactics, and (almost) no one

It might be that Apple just doesn't want to take the time to write software for Windows that works properly. Can't say I blame them...

If Apple wants to have any respect in the overall industry (which they're slowly losing from me), making crap software for platforms they don't like isn't going to get them anywhere. You know, it's really not that difficult to make proper software for Windows. Granted, everything will be vulnerable from time to time and I really could care less about the vulnerabilities.

Safari is marketed as the perfect browser for Windows, without flaw, without question. They have the gall to assume that everyone who uses iTunes would prefer Safari simply because it has an Apple logo on it.

And when Safari falls victim to Security vulnerabilities just like every program out there, those of us who know what we're talking about don't blame Apple for their complete incompetence as programmers. Security vulnerabilities happen. It's the way of programming. It's virtually unavoidable. Yet fanboys turn around and say Apple isn't obligated as a company to produce secure software and back up their own marketing hype simply because Windows is a crap platform.
It sickens me. And they get away with it.

It reads:B. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site(http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "OpenSourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these OpenSourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified AppleSoftware is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Applelabeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing termsgoverning use of the OpenSourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified AppleSoftware.You expressly acknowledge that if failure or damage to Apple hardware results from modification of the OpenSourced Components of the Apple Software, such failure or damage is excluded fromthe terms of the Apple hardware warranty.---

Now, one of the open source components used in Safari was/is Khtml which is licensed under the GNU LGPL. Now this clause allows you to modify & use the open source components ONLY if you use them on a single system (assuming the apple-labeled part has been fixed as i've heard).

Man, they're not even trying are they? This day an age, not only is there no excuse to ship with such a basic flaw, there's really no excuse to be programming in a fashion that would allow it. It's so easy to audit for basic overflows (at least on Windows) that it's silly. Even just compiling/GS with VC++ should protect you against a lot. Seriously, people give MS a bad rap these days, but any exploit you're going to see in their software these days usually takes advantage of complex system interactions or odd exception throwing.

Apple should take a serious look at their coding practices and consider banning the use of unsafe CRT functions and using _s versions of any C functions their using (Visual C++ has them and they're part of the next standard) or at a minimum requiring audits of all raw pointers. Static analysis tools should also be mandatory and should catch most issues.(http://www.spinroot.com/static/)

Seriously, people give MS a bad rap these days, but any exploit you're going to see in their software these days usually takes advantage of complex system interactions or odd exception throwing.

That's because Microsoft's "Active Content" security model, introduced in 1997, pretty much created the 'complex system interactions' vulnerability ecosystem. Before then the whole idea that an application that displayed untrusted content would provide a path for that content to execute code with full local user priv

500 million users of iTunes, really? 12% of the world population that has access to electricity, are you sure?? How many computer users are there even really out there anyways? And how the hell would you know how many single users for a program you have out there any bloody way? And why on Earth am I seemingly the only one out here this figure made cringe?

I already have good enough reason to feel Apple's whole approach to update sucks!

All I want to do is update QuickTime on my XP box. I need it because of the.mov and.qt files it won't play otherwise. QT tells me there's a new update I must install, but the ONLY WAY Apple will provide me this update with bundled with iTunes which I DON'T HAVE and DON'T WANT!

It's never a good idea to install software you have no need for (I'm one of the remaining 27 people in the world without an iPod), don't want (the software, or the iPod), and don't know how avoid without just not updating in the first place.

Why the hell does Apple think I need an iTunes update just to update their buggy QT?

Considering both WebKit and Gecko (the rendering engines in Safari and Firefox) are available under the LGPL, it's quite possible that some Gecko code seeped into WebKit or vice versa. I'd highly doubt it, however.

You're free to do one yourself if you want, since Safari's engine, WebKit, is open-source. It's kind of odd though that a "rip off" of Firefox would be scoring so much higher than it on the Acid3 (100/100 now as of the latest nightly), and (compared to FF2) on Acid2.

You mean, like.... Ummm.... I'm thinking here.... Windows Media Player for mac? That would be the sort of vindictive thing that would be awesome for MS to do in my not so humble opinion. Bonus points if they "forget" to fix their licence, and say that it has to be run under windows.